similar to: How to run the test suite on macOS?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "How to run the test suite on macOS?"

2014 Mar 22
2
[LLVMdev] compiler-rt CMake build ignores CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS
Hello, It looks like compiler-rt CMake scripts don't take CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS into account. This is because clang_compile and clang_link_shared functions call the newly-built compiler directly, and they don't add those flags. Using CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS is necessary on systems where the C++11-enabled libstdc++ is installed not in the default location. For example, the CentOS buildbot uses:
2018 Sep 21
2
msan test failures
I'm seeing some test failures for unit tests for msan (check-msan) happening in googletest, which I find weird. I'm on Arch Linux, with r342711. Below is one type of error that I see. The full log is 416MB (!) big. My guess is that those errors are related, but if anyone needs the full log, I'll provide it. Here is a reduced log from the end:
2019 Jun 13
4
Clang8 on MacOS 10.14
[Please cc me, as I am not on this list.] When installing the clang8 MacOS binary by wget <clang-binaries-tarball-url> tar -xf clang* cd clang* sudo mkdir /usr/local/clang8 sudo cp -R * /usr/local/clang8 the compiler works on MacOS 10.13, but not on MacOS 10.14, with an error: /usr/local/clang/bin/../include/c++/v1/stdio.h:108:15: fatal error: 'stdio.h' file not found
2014 Jun 30
3
[LLVMdev] LLD dynamic compilation
On 30 June 2014 16:16, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I think you are hitting a bug, the Observer pattern was added a few weeks > back, and may be there is some sort of uninitialized variable ? This is my back-trace at "-O2 -g" (since -O1 pass): operator() (file=<optimized out>, __closure=0x7fffffffde40) at
2011 Dec 13
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] utils/unittest: Consistency of gtest and gtest_main libs.
$(llvm-config --libs | tr " " "\n" | grep gtest) returns: -lgtest_main -lgtest instead of non-valid: -lLLVMgtest_main -lLLVMgtest It also fixes: $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest_main --- unittests/Makefile.unittest | 2 +- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/componentinfo.py | 4 ++-- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/main.py |
2016 Nov 02
4
Llvm build is broken (at least on FreeBSD)
Current revision 285840 fails to build on FreeBSD. I used the command: cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" ../llvm -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/opt/llvm/current && gmake (I am aware of FreeBSD llvm/clang ports, but the source build should always succeed as well.) Yuri ---errors--- Scanning dependencies of target gtest [ 91%] Building CXX object
2013 May 12
2
[LLVMdev] ASan unit test/libcxx build break
Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days) In file included from /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39: In file included from /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest.h:57: In file included from
2014 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] Warnings on Unittests
Hi folks, I'm using gcc 4.8.1 and I'm getting these warnings on every googletest file: src/llvm/utils/unittest/googletest/include/gtest/gtest-typed-test.h:239:47: warning: anonymous variadic macros were introduced in C99 [-Wvariadic-macros] # define REGISTER_TYPED_TEST_CASE_P(CaseName, ...) \ ^ It seems a gtest infrastructure file, so maybe
2013 May 13
0
[LLVMdev] ASan unit test/libcxx build break
+eugenis I see this while running 'check-msan'. On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Is no one else seeing this? (I've been seeing it for a few days) > > In file included from > > /usr/local/google/home/blaikie/dev/llvm/src/utils/unittest/googletest/gtest-all.cc:39: > In file included from > >
2008 Dec 23
6
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
(Forwarding this to llvm-dev) This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly a trial balloon and proof of concept. Some notes about the patch: 1) For the testing framework, I went with Google Test, since it's the one I have the most experience with. I fully expect an extended
2014 Jun 30
2
[LLVMdev] LLD dynamic compilation
Folks, I'm having a look at LLD and I need some guidance... I know it's not production ready for x86 and ARM (the idea is to make it so). My steps: I've added it to tools/lld and ran CMake again (on x86_64) on a standard release build (static linking). It works, builds but I see one unit test error: Note: Google Test filter = InputGraphTest.Observer [==========] Running 1 test from
2008 Dec 27
3
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit > test > > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is > mainly > > a
2008 Dec 27
0
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Talin <viri... at gmail.com> wrote: > (Forwarding this to llvm-dev) > > This patch adds a unit test framework to LLVM, along with a sample unit test > for DenseMap. I don't expect this patch to be accepted as-is, this is mainly > a trial balloon and proof of concept. I think this is a great idea! As Keir already noted, I would also agree with LLVM
2008 Dec 31
3
[LLVMdev] Unit test patch, updated
On Dec 30, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Talin wrote: > OK changes made and new patch attached. Nice +++ utils/unittest/Makefile (revision 0) ... +# This has to come after Makefile.common, since it doesn't allow us to +# override the VPATH value unless we set PROJECT_NAME, which we don't want +# to do. +VPATH = $(LLVM_SRC_ROOT)/utils/unittest/googletest/src/ Why play with VPATH here? What
2009 Aug 28
3
[LLVMdev] Regular Expression lib support
Nice! This looks good to me but probably Chris or someone else should sign off on it. There were two minor warnings on Darwin: -- In file included from /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regexec.c:81: /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regengine.inc: In function 'sbackref': /Volumes/Data/Users/ddunbar/llvm/lib/Support/regengine.inc:665: warning: control reaches end of
2013 Dec 29
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Prevent CMake from installing libgtest*.
This library is intended to be used locally for tests and not installed as a global system library. And even if it were, the install doesn't belong to LLVM but to a dedicated gtest package. --- utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt b/utils/unittest/CMakeLists.txt index fd1a048..c11c110 100644 ---
2018 Sep 13
2
New warnings when building trunk with GCC 9
Hello, GCC 9.0 introduces a new warning checkers and some of them found possible issues in LLVM. In file included from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/LazyCallGraph.h:38, from /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/unittests/Analysis/LazyCallGraphTest.cpp:10: /home/davidbolvansky/trunk/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/ArrayRef.h: In instantiation of
2018 Mar 15
2
[RFC] Updating googletest to non-release tagged version
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:09 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +Chandler who might have some thoughts on this. > > Could you provide an example here of the motivation for the feature you're > missing? Might help motivate the discussion (and/or we'll end up nitpicking > how it could be done differently without that feature... - which
2009 Aug 27
0
[LLVMdev] Regular Expression lib support
On 2009-08-27 09:06, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > 2009/8/25 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>: > >> On 2009-08-25 21:18, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> >>> Woot! Thanks a bunch Edwin! >>> >>> Some comments on the patch: >>> -- >>> I'm not sure if it makes sense to import the man pages, if we only >>> expose Regex.h.
2008 Dec 28
5
[LLVMdev] [Patch] Adding unit tests to LLVM
2008/12/27 Mark Kromis <greybird at mac.com> > Just a curiosity question, why push for gtest vs Boost Test or > a different test suite? > I normally use Boost, and their test suite, so I'm more familiar with that. > So I was wondering is one better then the other, or is it just that someone > makes a patch for it? > I looked more into Boost.Test to see what's in